The European Union continues to reshape how technology companies operate within its borders through a combination of new regulations targeting both artificial intelligence systems and mobile operating platforms. Recent developments show regulators examining how firms like Google, Apple, and others integrate smart assistants and generative tools into their devices while complying with obligations under the Digital Markets Act and the AI Act.
According to reporting from The Verge, officials have begun questioning whether default voice assistants such as Siri and the Google Assistant create unfair advantages that prevent competition from gaining traction on smartphones and tablets. The scrutiny focuses on practices where these assistants come preinstalled and set as the primary option, making it difficult for alternative services to reach users at scale. Investigators want to determine if such arrangements violate rules designed to promote fair access and user choice across digital services.
The Digital Markets Act requires companies designated as gatekeepers to allow users to select different default apps and to provide ways for third-party developers to integrate their offerings more easily. For voice assistants, this could mean enabling users to switch their primary helper to services from smaller companies or even open-source alternatives without facing technical barriers or degraded performance. Apple has already faced pressure to open iOS to alternative app stores and browser engines, and similar expectations now extend to how Siri processes requests and shares data with other applications.
At the same time, the EU AI Act introduces specific requirements for systems that qualify as high-risk or general-purpose AI. Voice assistants that use large language models to generate responses, summarize information, or make decisions on behalf of users may fall under these categories. Developers must therefore conduct conformity assessments, maintain detailed documentation, and ensure transparency about the capabilities and limitations of their models. Noncompliance can lead to substantial fines, sometimes reaching into the billions of euros depending on the size of the company and the severity of the violation.
Google’s Android platform finds itself in a particularly complex position. The company already modified its mobile operating system in response to earlier antitrust rulings that found its licensing practices restricted competition. Now, under the Digital Markets Act, Google must allow users to install apps from sources outside the Play Store and to set alternative voice assistants as default without friction. Yet integrating advanced AI features, such as those powered by Gemini, adds another layer of regulatory attention. Authorities want to verify that these AI enhancements do not create new barriers or reinforce existing market dominance.
Apple, meanwhile, has introduced Apple Intelligence across its devices, bringing on-device processing and cloud-based models to Siri and other system features. The company emphasizes privacy and local computation, but regulators question whether these improvements make it even harder for rival assistants to compete. If Siri becomes significantly more capable while remaining the only assistant with full access to system-level APIs, competitors could argue that the playing field remains tilted despite nominal options to change defaults. European officials have requested detailed information about how Apple shares data between its AI services and third-party applications, seeking evidence that integration points remain open and nondiscriminatory.
The intersection of these two regulatory frameworks creates practical challenges for product teams. Engineers must design voice assistants that satisfy both the interoperability mandates of the Digital Markets Act and the risk-management obligations of the AI Act. For example, when a user asks an assistant to book a flight or manage personal data, the system might rely on models classified as high-risk. Developers need to implement logging mechanisms that record decision pathways while also exposing those capabilities to competing services that users might prefer. Balancing these demands requires careful architecture decisions around data flows, permission models, and fallback behaviors.
Smaller developers and startups see opportunity in the regulatory push. Several European companies have built voice platforms that emphasize specialized domains such as healthcare, finance, or accessibility. Under the new rules, these firms hope to gain prominent placement options within Android and iOS interfaces. However, they still face significant technical hurdles. Most mobile operating systems tightly control microphone access, wake-word detection, and background processing. Even if users can change their default assistant, the underlying system may still route certain requests through the manufacturer’s own service first. Regulators are examining whether such residual preferences constitute a form of self-preferencing that needs further correction.
Data privacy forms another central concern. Voice assistants constantly listen for activation phrases and process audio streams that may contain sensitive personal information. The AI Act requires providers to implement appropriate safeguards when handling biometric data or making inferences about individuals. At the same time, the General Data Protection Regulation continues to demand explicit consent for many forms of data processing. Companies must therefore create consent flows that clearly explain what information their AI models collect, how long they retain it, and what rights users have to withdraw permission. These requirements become especially complicated when models are trained on large internet-scale datasets that may include personal information scraped without clear authorization.
Testing and compliance procedures add considerable overhead. Organizations need to run extensive audits to classify their models correctly under the AI Act’s risk tiers. A general-purpose model that can answer questions across many topics might be deemed systemic and subject to additional transparency rules. Companies must publish summaries of training data, disclose energy consumption during inference, and provide mechanisms for users to challenge outputs that affect their legal status or fundamental rights. Meeting these standards while maintaining competitive performance and user experience presents a nontrivial engineering task.
Industry groups have voiced concerns about the cumulative burden. They argue that simultaneous compliance with the Digital Markets Act’s choice requirements, the AI Act’s documentation mandates, and existing competition remedies could slow innovation and raise costs that ultimately pass to consumers. European officials counter that these measures aim to prevent monopolistic behavior that harms both competition and individual rights. They point to past cases where dominant platforms used default settings to lock in market share, making it nearly impossible for innovative alternatives to gain meaningful adoption.
Looking ahead, enforcement actions will likely test the practical limits of these regulations. The European Commission has signaled willingness to impose interim measures if companies drag their feet on opening their systems. Fines for repeated violations can reach 10 percent of global annual turnover under the Digital Markets Act, and the AI Act allows penalties up to 7 percent for certain infringements. Such sums represent serious financial incentives for companies to prioritize compliance.
Developers outside the largest technology firms hope the regulations will translate into genuine opportunities. Open-source voice projects, independent accessibility tools, and specialized business assistants could reach far wider audiences if mobile platforms expose the necessary APIs and permit easy switching. Success will depend on whether regulators can ensure that technical implementations match the stated policy goals of openness and fairness.
The coming months will bring further guidance from Brussels as investigators review responses from gatekeeper companies. Apple, Google, and Microsoft have all submitted detailed roadmaps explaining how they plan to adapt their voice platforms. Whether these plans satisfy the dual demands of fair competition and responsible AI deployment remains an open question that will shape the future of intelligent assistants across Europe and potentially influence global product strategies.
Users may soon notice changes in how they interact with their devices. Options to select different voice assistants could appear during initial setup, and system settings might offer clearer controls over which services process audio and personal data. At the same time, companies will likely introduce new transparency features that explain when AI generates responses and what data sources inform those answers. These adjustments represent concrete outcomes of the regulatory pressure now applied to some of the world’s most valuable technology businesses.
The process illustrates how public policy can directly influence product design at a fundamental level. Instead of treating voice interfaces as simple convenience features, companies must now regard them as regulated services carrying significant legal responsibilities. This shift requires new internal processes, cross-functional teams, and ongoing dialogue with regulators. For the broader technology sector, the European approach offers a test case for whether detailed rules can successfully balance innovation, competition, and consumer protection in an area that touches nearly every aspect of daily digital life.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication